--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
> > > <j_alexander_stanley@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Fairfield satsang group is connected to a phone bridge,
and
> > > > Vaj has the number. He's been asked if this is the group he's
> > > > talking about, but he won't say.
> > >
> > > And in the Guruphiliac link that people are pissing
> > > and moaning about, right there in print it says,
> > > "...after observing a particular satsang's socio-
> > > psychodynamics in the U.K. recently."
> >
> > Interestingly, though, it doesn't say that in Vaj's
> > posts either to the blog or to the Yahoo groups.
> >
> > Either the blogger was mistaken in his (her?)
>
> This particular Jody is a guy.
>
> > introduction to Vaj's blog post, or Vaj was willing
> > to share with him/her what he refuses to tell the
> > participants in the Yahoo groups.

> The UK reference does pique my curiosity a bit.
>
> For reference, Vaj's observations were posted to FFL back in March:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/89488

Ah, that's an interesting thread to revisit.

A couple of extracts.  First, when asked whether the
group he was describing was the one in Fairfield, Vaj
responded:

"Given the very public nature of FFL, and the repercussions common
here, it's probably best to keep specifics private."

Which strikes me as a very thinly disguised "Yes."

And also as a possible basis for Vaj having told Jody
of Guruphiliac that it was a U.K. group...

It clearly was a group that included TMers or former TMers,
since Vaj said in one of his follow-ups:

"One disconcerting thing that was obvious very soon and persisted
throughout these sessions was the almost absolute infrequency with
which descriptions ever strayed outside of either established TM-
speak or advaito-speak. It was almost absolutely a closed loop: no
freshness or newness. Although it seemed as if newness and freshness
could be contrived, it was unconvincing compared to the freshness of
the natural state."

Much more interesting than any of this, though, was
Jim Flanegin's response to the original post (note that
Jim initially assumed Vaj was referring to FFL, just as
Trinity did):

-------
Hi Vaj, and thanks for your comments and perspective on collective
satsanging here on FFL (I am assuming this is the group you refer to
and have been observing...).

I can certainly see from one POV how a group of awakened individuals
could appear to have some silent codependent agreement with one
another, driven by ego satisfaction. And how from this same POV,
there is no argument and little criticism within the group because
this would fracture the codependent nature of it.

On the other hand, from another POV, I can see the enjoyment of a
group of awakened individuals sharing perspectives on a state of
ultimate freedom. With no consequences to other observers, one way
or another- no $$ requested, or follow up meetings advertised...

Because the same event is observed and experienced differently
according to our consciousness, I cannot say that everyone should
experience this group of awakened individuals in the same way.

However, a couple of key points about this discussion:

1. determination of awakening, or not, of another is something
sensed on a feeling level. Proclamations do no good, unless the
person is walking the walk so to speak. Unfortunately it seems that
the ones best able to see another's awakening are those who are
awake themselves...

2. the challenging of awakened states is helpful to a point. However
to ceaselessly challenge, disagree and insult those who state that
they are awakened can be harmful to observers of this dialogue. It
does no harm to the awakened person, for obvious reasons. But it is
not a good thing in my opinion to in effect broadcast a message that
awakening is not possible for the typical seeker, unless an endless
and often nebulous set of conditions are met first.

Awakening is not something easily established. It takes much
dedication, devotion, faith, strength, and discrimination for anyone
who truly wants to reach that goal. To state regularly as some here
have done, that such an experience can never be established by the
tools many of have at our disposal (TM and TM-Sidhis), is to me a
disservice to those whose ardently seek to have their deepest
desires fulfilled.

Seeking is a normal and often difficult part of the process of
awakening. As we work on one area and the next, creating gradually
and permanenently our awakened selves, it is helpful to keep in our
minds and hearts that the goal will be reached. And not through any
other means than alternating meditation with activity.

Thank you.
----------

This is a thoughtful and potentially useful counterpoint
to Vaj's analysis.  I wonder whether Vaj considered
posting it to the Guruphiliac blog and group along with
his own observations, just in the interests of balance
and an alternate perspective?






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'




YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to